Re: Thread 3: selection of registrars

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joseph,

  As I have answered your question from other sources 5 times mow,
my idea is that the be around $2k.  This would open up the lottery
a bit, thereby making it a bit more open.  This I have also stated
on two occasions here.

  I know that there have been at least 6 people on this list that
have expressed concerns about the amount of the Fee.  So I am 
sure that the same people have not been raising this concern.  I am
keeping track of whom has expressed this concern, amongst other 
concerns to the Dec 19th draft.  Any other questions of me?
Be more than happy to answer.  

  With respect to the 60 day waiting period and shared registries,
these too seem to be in great contention as well.  Shared registries
is not really feasible at this time, so I fail to understand why
it is even being discussed.  With respect to the 60 day waiting
period and the $20k fee, which are linked.  I have expressed
why and how I perposed to resolve those porblems befor on this list.
Review your postings!

Regards,


Joseph J. Kim wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Chris,
> >
> >   The major contention I am seeing on this list is that
> > the fee of $20K is too limiting on the lottery participation.
> > Were it not for that and the refund policy, I think that
> > this lottery idea may be workable.
> 
> It may be my imagination but it seems that this point of contention is being
> raised by the same people.  If a company cannot come up with $20K maybe they
> shouldn't be running a registry?
> 
> What kind of a fee did you have in mind?
> 
> -jjk

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com